Talk:Pushpak Express

Unresonable edits

A user seems hell bent on remove the time table section citing a ridiculous reason. The time table is an integral part of most articles related to trains on the indian railway network. It would be wrong to remove it.

Superfast1111 (talk) 05:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Would be better if the editor explains his reasons (if any other that his usual thoughts) here rather than adding re-directs to other pages. And while he is at it, perhaps he can answer an old question left for him - Mumbai central image to Surat railway station's article.[1]

Superfast1111 (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be better if you learn to familiarise with policies. Go and read WP:OSE, WP:NOT and in particular to this edit, go through WP:NOTTRAVEL. Being blocked for re-instating undue edits, I guess you should've learnt your lesson by now! And yeah, please do broaden your knowledge on WP:SOCK as you edit war without logging in just to prove as if it was done by another person who agrees to you! — Abhishek  ^Talk 06:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you teacher for the policy speech & homework. Bhubaneswar Duronto Express, Secunderabad Mumbai Duronto Express, Ernakulam-Lokmanya Tilak Duronto, Howrah Mumbai CST Duronto Express, Ernakulam-H.Nizamudin Duronto, Secunderabad Hazrat Nizamuddin Duronto Express, Nagpur Duronto express, Chennai Madurai AC Duronto Express, Kolkata Shalimar – Patna Duronto Express, Bhopal Shatabdi Express, Lucknow Swarna Shatabdi Express, Kanpur New Delhi Shatabdi Express also have time tables. Would you be so kind as to remove them also?

Oh and do answer the question left for you. It would help a lot.

I am not here to spoon feed you on policies. Go and read WP:OSE, your argument that other articles have time tables, hence it holds good to have it here is irrational. It's a waste of time and energy trying to educate people like you. — Abhishek  ^Talk 06:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The feeling is mutual. But if you read the Secunderabad Mumbai Duronto Express, you did exactly what i proposed on that page, WP:OSE has been read but i am not convinced that you are right. But if you feel you are then why dont you go around undoing timetables on every article rather than just targetting me. And do answer the Surat railway station question where you were also hellbent on saying you were right. Superfast1111 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Request that the present version be maintained pending dispute resolution. Have made a note on the edit Warring noticeboard. Superfast1111 (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You might want to post a note at WT:TRAINS asking whether it is ok to include time tables or not. Edit warring will end up with both of you blocked. --regentspark (comment) 13:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I second that. Stop warring and start consulting the community. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's been a week and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Timetables - existence and convention seems to strongly favour not having timetables. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The user Abhishek191288 refused to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Timetables - existence and convention where the issue of routing, time tables was discussed in extensive detail. The article was subsequently modified accordingly but it seems Abhishek191288 is back at it again. I fail to understand why he failed to utter a single word during the discussion & is now running around quoting pages to read as if an answer will drop out of the sky rather than discussing things out. Superfast1111 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does it matter whether or not he participated. As I stated a the end of that discussion "I see five editors all making a very good case against timetables. Good rationale, many points, and pretty darn specific guidelines saying no timetables unless there's a very good reason. Include me on that list, so now six. I call that rough consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong." Do you disagree that there was rough consensus? Do you have some new argument that will convince the community to now accept the timetables? Were there any others who wanted the timetables apart from you? Did you cite any policies or guidelines to support your position? I think Abhishek191288 is well within his rights to look at that discussion and use it as a basis to remove timetables. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:22, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure it matters since he was the reason the edits & the discussion started in the first place. Sure i had gone along with the view taken there but one of the points there was a couple of points from Mackensen which stated that a brief timetable & a raw route showing the service is fine. I have not included a timetable in any subsequent article. So was i wrong in my interpretation??

Superfast1111 (talk) 05:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but why does that matter that he was the reason the edits & the discussion started in the first place?

Mackensen approved of a brief timetable for a former service citing Expo '74 (train) as an example of that, but also said that a raw list of stops would also be fine. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Now i am really confused. Am i right, Is Abhishek right or the worst option - its how both of see things.

Superfast1111 (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand you. Please clarify (and indent your posts). Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

• Well allright, just take a look at the article before & after Abhishek's edit. He has removed the brief time table i had inserted while apparently accepting the raw list of stops. With my interpretation of what Mackensen said i could keep both the raw list of stops and the brief time table. The time table only listed the arrival & departure timings, it really cant be compressed more than that.

So the question was, was i correct in my interpretation of what Mackensen said or not? Superfast1111 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)